Quirkco Investments Ltd v Aspray Transport Ltd [electronic resource]
Quirkco Investments Ltd v Aspray Transport Ltd [electronic resource]
- 2011
[2011] EWHC 3060 (Ch), 23 November 2011. The ability to terminate a contract may be a matter of interpretation. Considers whether defendant tenant A had successfully exercised a conditional break clause in respect of a lease on commercial premises owned by claimant landlord Q. Q contended that A's notice was ineffective because A was in breach of its obligations under the lease and so was prevented by the terms of the lease from serving a valid notice under the break clause. "Held": Court found for A. However the question whether A's lease ended on the 18 December 2010 or will continue until 2015 remains unclear.
QUIRKCO INVESTMENTS LTD V ASPRAY TRANSPORT LTD
CAPITAL AND CITY HOLDINGS LTD V DEAN WARBURG LTD AND ORS
England and Wales--1543-
[2011] EWHC 3060 (Ch), 23 November 2011. The ability to terminate a contract may be a matter of interpretation. Considers whether defendant tenant A had successfully exercised a conditional break clause in respect of a lease on commercial premises owned by claimant landlord Q. Q contended that A's notice was ineffective because A was in breach of its obligations under the lease and so was prevented by the terms of the lease from serving a valid notice under the break clause. "Held": Court found for A. However the question whether A's lease ended on the 18 December 2010 or will continue until 2015 remains unclear.
QUIRKCO INVESTMENTS LTD V ASPRAY TRANSPORT LTD
CAPITAL AND CITY HOLDINGS LTD V DEAN WARBURG LTD AND ORS
England and Wales--1543-